The Guardian June 5th: “London 2012 security operation investigating 500,000 people”

click picture for full size view of this ‘whole mind scanner’

These associated lyrics (from 1968 at the end of the roaring sixties) will certainly let many alarm bells ring when Paul McCartney will pass the check point prior to his opening performance of the 2012 Olympics Games in London. Automated surveillance systems now massively used to prevent any unrest during the London Olympics also checking out this humble WordPress blog – are unintelligent and will just gather that there  is a pattern of ‘adjacent words’ with a recurring frequency of the terms:

‘revolution’, ‘change’, ‘world’, ‘destruction’, ‘money’, ‘hate’, ‘constitution’, ‘chairman’, and ‘Mao’.

M16 and Scotland Yard on-line surveyors vetting each person entering the Olympic perimeters, will rush to their screens alarmed by the perfect Big Brother System – operational and tested already for months – and in the embedded earphones of the female constable’s hat, a voice will say…. “take this man apart for questioning.”

And…, of course there will be excuses afterward and an embarrassed smile, when human intelligence will have been applied. “Please Sir McCartney, come and join the opening ceremony, there never has been any harm in your songs, … excuse us for those stupid machines.”

You say you want a revolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

You tell me that it’s evolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction

Don’t you know that you can count me out

Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right

All right, all right

You say you got a real solution

Well, you know

We’d all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution

Well, you know

We’re doing what we can

But when you want money

For people with minds that hate

All I can tell is brother you have to wait

Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right

All right, all right

Ah

Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah…

You say you’ll change the constitution

Well, you know

We all want to change your head

You tell me it’s the institution

Well, you know

You better free you mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao

You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right

All right, all right

All right, all right, all right

All right, all right, all right

The good old Birtish National Council for Civil Liberties (founded in 1934) now renamed ‘Liberty’, has already for a long time this subdued polite commend on their web page about the impact of surveillance on the London 2012 Olympics:

There is no doubting that police and security will be faced with demanding challenges during the London Olympics. Nevertheless, infringements on basic civil liberties like the right to free speech and peaceful protest are not the solution to a secure Games. It would also be completely contrary to the spirit of the Olympics for 2012 to become an excuse for mass surveillance and loss of liberties. What a shameful legacy for London 2012 that would be.

The remark about “the spirit of the Olympics 2012” in London and how state surveillance would be contrary to the original intentions of the Olympic Games, points to an implicit positive enlightening view of the history of the Olympic Games, that is widely found. It is surprising that even serious people, like those of the ‘Liberty’ organisation, stick to the idealised vision of international brother- and sisterhood with the emphasis not on winning but on competing in a good manner, thus promoting international understanding and peace. In the words of the founder of the movement Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937):

L’important dans la vie ce n’est point le triomphe, mais le combat, l’essentiel ce n’est pas d’avoir vaincu mais de s’être bien battu. (The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.)

Coubertin’s view of the origin of the Olympic Games was highly idealised and selective  in his historic references. He created of course a new concept and with it the myth of the peaceful fair play internationalism. As always with a good myth, it is not just fantasy, there are some historical relevant elements in it, be it that there is no serious search for the original context of these ‘elements’.  Nigel Spivey of the University of Cambridge did seven years ago a serious attempt to re-contextualise the Olympic Myth in his book “The Ancient Olympics: War Minus the Shooting”, published by Oxford University Press and with several pages on-line available at Amazon.co.uk or at GoogleBooks, this worldcat.org link tells you in which nearby library you can his book. The summary of the book makes clear that it may be a good read for this summer of the London 2012 Olympics:

The word “athletics” is derived from the Greek verb “to struggle or to suffer for a prize.” As Nigel Spivey reveals in this engaging account of the Olympics in ancient Greece, “suffer” is putting it mildly. Indeed, the Olympics were not so much a graceful display of Greek beauty as a war fought by other means. Nigel Spivey paints a portrait of the Greek Olympics as they really were–fierce contexts between bitter rivals, in which victors won kudos and rewards, and losers faced scorn and even assault. Victory was almost worth dying for, the author notes, and a number of athletes did just that. Many more resorted to cheating and bribery. Contested always bitterly and often bloodily, the ancient Olympics were no an idealistic celebration of unity, but a clash of military powers in an arena not far removed from the battlefield. The author explores what the events were, the rules for competitors, training and diet, the pervasiveness of cheating and bribery, the prizes on offer, the exclusion of “barbarians,” and protocols on pederasty. He also peels back the mythology surrounding the games today and investigates where our current conception of the Olympics has come from and how the Greek notions of beauty and competitiveness have influenced our modern culture.”  

There are several editions of the book with differing covers. I like this cover the best. It appears in a critical review in the magazine World Archeology; c;ick cover image to go to the review…